Kevin Barrett could break Libertarian records

[ElMondoHummus]

your use of the term "anti-Semitic" is offensive and racist, and is anti-Muslim and anti-Arab. Most Semites are Arabs.

Oh, God, not that canard again!

The term antisemitism has historically referred to prejudice against Jews alone, and this was the only use of the word for more than a century. It does not traditionally refer to prejudice against other people who speak Semitic languages (e.g. Arabs or Assyrians). Bernard Lewis, Professor of Near Eastern Studies Emeritus at Princeton University, says that "Antisemitism has never anywhere been concerned with anyone but Jews." Yehuda Bauer also articulated this view in his writings and lectures: (the term) "Antisemitism, especially in its hyphenated spelling, is inane nonsense, because there is no Semitism that you can be anti to." A similar point is made by Professor Shmuel Almog, of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who writes "So the hyphen, or rather its omission, conveys a message; if you hyphenate your 'anti-Semitism', you attach some credence to the very foundation on which the whole thing rests."

In recent decades, some groups have argued that the term should be extended to include prejudice against Arabs or Anti-Arabism in the context of answering accusations of Arab antisemitism; further, some, including the Islamic Association of Palestine, have argued that this implies that Arabs cannot, by definition, be antisemitic. The argument runs that since the Semitic language family includes Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic languages and the historical term "Semite" refers to all those who consider themselves descendants of the Biblical Shem, "anti-Semitism" should be likewise inclusive. However, this usage is not generally accepted.

 

[tomwaits]

Kevin Barrett goes to Rep. Kind's office to deliver a pink slip to him. Barrett, of course, is wearing a "V For Vendetta" mask...

Hahaha...I do vaguely remember a video of him in Madison passing out flyers or something with the mask on. As if a grown man wearing a silly mask would somehow help his cause.

 

[TexasJack]

IPR is not a Libertarian site, you are making more false claims. YOU have hurled accusations, so you need to prove your claims.

You should also learn about the principle of being innocent until proven guilty. Barrett is innocent.

It supports and advertises them, it's not a reliable site, find another.

I haven't hurled any accusations(other than calling Barrett a loon, which is self-evident), I'm reading the reports from the local media, much more reliable than your biased site.

You're the one hurling accusations about Bush and 911 without proof, so please don't be a hypocrite.

 

[Galileo]

You are lying, this charge was dropped by the wife.

Why do "truthers" lie so much?

No, you are lying, wives don't drop charges, judges do. You are mixed up.

 

[Galileo]

It supports and advertises them, it's not a reliable site, find another.

I haven't hurled any accusations(other than calling Barrett a loon, which is self-evident), I'm reading the reports from the local media, much more reliable than your biased site.

You're the one hurling accusations about Bush and 911 without proof, so please don't be a hypocrite.

DRG proved that Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11 a long time ago. This is a settled issue.

 

[TexasJack]

No, you are lying, wives don't drop charges, judges do. You are mixed up.

Actually prosecutors do, usually at the request of the party.

 

[Galileo]

It supports and advertises them, it's not a reliable site, find another.

I haven't hurled any accusations(other than calling Barrett a loon, which is self-evident), I'm reading the reports from the local media, much more reliable than your biased site.

You're the one hurling accusations about Bush and 911 without proof, so please don't be a hypocrite.

All the media you have cited report on Libertarian candidates, so under your logic, they are not reliable news sources. I suggest you stop citing them.

 

[TexasJack]

DRG proved that Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11 a long time ago. This is a settled issue.

What a hypocrite, what happened to innocent before proven guilty? It sounds like a police state to me.

 

[Galileo]

Actually prosecutors do, usually at the request of the party.

That's another false claim. There was no prosecutor at Barrett's TRO hearing.

 

[TexasJack]

All the media you have cited report on Libertarian candidates, so under your logic, they are not reliable news sources. I suggest you stop citing them.

"Advertise", please read with comprehension next time.

 

[WildCat]

What a hypocrite, what happened to innocent before proven guilty? It sounds like a police state to me.

Truthers envision something very close to a police state once they gain power, as this article shows:

Barrett said he thinks Kind also ought to be tried for war crimes because of his support of the Iraq war.

Of course, he also said Gravy (Mark Roberts) should be hanged.

 

[Galileo]

What a hypocrite, what happened to innocent before proven guilty? It sounds like a police state to me.

Bush and Cheney have already been proven guilty. You're a hypocrite if you think the fox will guard the henhouse.

 

[WildCat]

Bush and Cheney have already been proven guilty. You're a hypocrite if you think the fox will guard the henhouse.

 

[TexasJack]

Bush and Cheney have already been proven guilty. You're a hypocrite if you think the fox will guard the henhouse.

So no trial, you're the judge and jury, nice police state you're running. Is this what your buddy Barrett wants?

 

[Galileo]

Truthers envision something very close to a police state once they gain power, as this article shows:

Of course, he also said Gravy (Mark Roberts) should be hanged.

You are mixed up. The jury determines if someone is guilty of war crimes.

 

[WildCat]

You are mixed up. The jury determines if someone is guilty of war crimes.

And this "jury" trial will not be held in an actual court room, since that would be the fox guarding the henhouse, correct? Who makes up the jury, truthers like you who are habitual liars?

 

[Suddenly]

Your facts are all wrong. Dr. Barrett got more than 332 votes. Olson did not get 226 votes either, he got less than that. And there were more than 558 votes, another false claim.

You started out by claiming there were only 100 votes in the primary, now your are claiming there were over 5 TIMES that many votes, and even these claims are wrong.

Heh... the official count according to the Wisconsin State Elections Board is 345 with 576 total votes. What a huge difference. Boy is may face red. That news site is such a fraud. Although they had the other guy's totals right...


I was off by 245 votes, as I was discussing the number of votes for Barrett. Funny because I thought I was being sarcastic and wound up pretty close.

You also are probably not aware that the voter turnout in Wisconsin for the primary was only 4% of registered voters, and that does not even include eligible voters who are not registered. So your claims of what you perceive to be low totals are invalid. Everybody got low votes totals.

If the LP was the only party having the election, the evidence indicates that at least 48 precincts would have gone completely unused, and that assumes that exactly one voter shows in every other precinct.

In fact, the precinct by precinct results can be found here and are not that far away from the above. According to my quick scan of the results, there are no precincts with more than nine votes, and only two of those.

Most of the candidates on the ballot got even less votes than Barrett, yet you single him out.

I'm pretty sure you are the one singling him out as somehow being representitive of some sort of validation of something or other. In the primary he got less than half the votes I got when I ran for student body president in High School, and I didn't even win.

Barrett got more votes than Olson. If your conspiracy theories about 9/11 are so correct, why did Olson get LESS THAN 226 votes from fringe nutjobs? Huh?

This sort of answers itself. Congrats. Barrett is more relevant than someone named Olsen among people that will waste their time voting in an LP primary.

He will likely get a decent number of votes in the general because of the set of (IMO cowardly) people that will vote for an unknown yahoo to send a message (and claim the moral right to complain whoever wins) tends to grow when economic times are tough...

I suggest you check your facts before you post. Not everything you read in the newspapers about politics is true. When you spread bogus info like this, that is how vote-counting conspiracies get started!

I'm sure the scandal over his 345 votes being not reported correctly will rock the nation.

 

[Highly Selassie]

I know the author of the article, and no, I'm not interested in accusing my friend of libel. You are the one making the libel accusation.

Libel must be intentional and my friend made a mistake, did nothing intentional and there is no libel.

OK, so did the newspaper publish a retraction? I mean, surely you let your friend know he messed up. And since this appears to be a legitimate publication, they'd be interested in getting the facts straight, right? Although at this point I really suspect you're just making all of this up with claims that we have no way of verifying.

Also, intent is not necessary in libel cases.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Truthers envision something very close to a police state once they gain power, as this article shows:

Of course, he also said Gravy (Mark Roberts) should be hanged.

When I clicked on the link and saw the headline "Angry Local Runs For Congress" I honestly had to look to see if it wasn't an Onion article. Reading the article didn't help dispel the Onion-y vibe either.

It is pretty sad when news about one's candidacy is indistinguishable from humorous parody.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Dr. Barrett doesn't have a 13 year old son.

Boy, are you out of luck.

From his own website:

PS If you want to read more about me, check out my humorous autobiography Truth Jihad. Or read the Capital Times profile below.

From the profile he references:

He calls the cabin his zawiya, or Islamic spiritual retreat. There's a lot of peace to be found here, an escape from the academic and political rigors of Madison, where Barrett, his wife and their two boys, 12 and 9, live in University of Wisconsin staff housing.

That was written on July 22, 2006. It took me approximately 3 minutes to find. If you want to split hairs, it's likely (probable?) that his son is 14 rather than 13. Then again, I don't know how long ago he was accused of hitting him. Perhaps his son was 13 at the time.

Any more lies you want to tell?